4.3 Article

Factor Xa Inhibitory Profile of Apixaban, Betrixaban, Edoxaban, and Rivaroxaban Does Not Fully Reflect Their Biologic Spectrum

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1076029619847524

关键词

anti-Xa agents; laboratory monitoring; anticoagulant

资金

  1. Hemostasis Research Laboratory and Cardiovascular Institute, Health Science Division, Loyola University Chicago

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The currently available oral anti-Xa agents are claimed to produce their anticoagulant and antithrombotic effects solely by the inhibition of factor Xa. This study profiled various anti-Xa drugs in routinely used laboratory assays to demonstrate that their effects are not solely related to the anti-Xa activities. Apixaban, betrixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban were obtained commercially. Native and citrated whole blood was used for the activated clotting time (ACT) and thromboelastography (TEG). Citrated plasma was used for monitoring the prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), Heptest, and prothrombinase-induced clotting time (PiCT) tests. An amidolytic method was used for the determination of anti-Xa effects. Thrombin-induced fibrinokinetics was monitored optically. Thrombin generation studies were carried out using the calibrated automated thrombogram. All of the anti-Xa agents produced concentration- and assay-dependent effects. In the ACT at 2.5 mu g/mL and TEG at 1.0 mu g/mL, edoxaban exhibited the strongest anticoagulation effect. In the PiCT, PT, and aPTT assay at 1 mu g/mL, edoxaban showed stronger effects than other agents. The half maximal inhibitory concentration of these agents for the inhibition of factor Xa ranged from 340 to >1000 ng/mL. In the thrombin generation inhibition assay, apixaban showed the strongest activity. In the fibrinokinetics, different anti-Xa agents produced varying degrees of inhibition. These results demonstrate that the measured anti-Xa activity alone does not fully reflect the overall biologic spectrum of these agents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据